Category Archives: Nationhood

UPDATE (10/22/019): Has Tucker Gone Soft On Immigration, Which Is A True Existential Issue?

Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Media, Nationhood, Political Correctness

Has Tucker Carlson gotten The Talk from the bosses at Fox News? By The Talk I mean the injunction against discussing the national question: mass immigration and the survival of the majority that dare not speak its name.

The show today, 6/11/019, was vanilla—Tucker’s correspondent decamped to the the Dominican Republic, to check out the safety of the minibars, instead of to the southwest to check out America’s wide-open border.

Tucker then interviewed a legal immigrant with permissible views on immigration—legal good; illegal bad.

Tucker oozed praise for said legal immigrant with permissible views. (Which were not exhaustive, because Harvard’s George Borjas showed that immigration in its totality has become an economic drain, not only illegal immigration.)

And, a short time back, on the day President Trump declared we hunger for many more “geniuses” in this country (ask the IEEE how many American engineers are unemployed)—the 2nd item on the Tucker Carlson Show was the latest SAT swindle, as if the affirmative-action swindle that is college admission is anything new.

Immigration experts in-the-know, like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, understand that unfettered legal immigration, even more so than the illegal torrents—is what has transformed the country beyond the tipping point. (Read “Understanding Chain Migration.”)

By the way, Tucker and Dana Perino smirked about the overuse of the existential adjective. (The word “narrative” is way worse.) Existential is a nice adjective when used sparingly and judicially.

If anything is an is an existential issue it’s immigration, both kinds, but especially the legal kind. It’s the defining issue of our time.  That’s why, once-upon-a-time, a president even ran on the immigration platform.

UPDATED (10/22/019):

Comments Off on UPDATE (10/22/019): Has Tucker Gone Soft On Immigration, Which Is A True Existential Issue?

Written by on

COLUMN: Bernie’s Degeneracy: That’s Democracy For Ya

Conservatism, Democracy, Democrats, Egalitarianism, History, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Nationhood, Political Philosophy

COLUMN: “Bernie’s Degeneracy: That’s Democracy For Ya” is now on Townhall.com.  An excerpt:

BERNIE SANDERS, the senator from Vermont, said he thinks “everyone should have the right to vote—even the Boston Marathon bomber … even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”

Bernie is right about a “slippery slope.” But the befuddled Bernie is worried about the wrong slope.

Denying the vote to some and conferring it on others is not a “slippery slope.” It’s exercising good judgment.

Insisting that the vote in America belongs to everyone, irrespective: now that’s a slippery slope, down which the slide is well underway.

As it stands, there are almost no moral or ethical obligations attached to citizenship in our near-unfettered Democracy.

Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.

Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates for the vote—and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American citizens.

The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a despot.

But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers, including America’s constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society would thus degenerate.

What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country—unconditional voting—is but an extension of “mass franchise,” which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance. …

… READ “Bernie’s Degeneracy: That’s Democracy For Ya” on Townhall.com. 

If You Support Nation-State Sovereignty, You Must Reject US Extradition Overreach

Canada, China, Foreign Policy, Iran, Law, Nationhood, The State

Poor Julian Assange’s kidnapping from the Ecuadorian consulate in England, earlier this month, at the behest of American prosecutors, has faded from Fake News’s fleeting collective memory.

Assange is next due to appear before court via video link on May 2, in relation to a US extradition request over allegations he conspired with former military analyst Chelsea Manning to download and disseminate classified material.
That appearance will be a short mention, with US prosecutors expected to issue a more detailed argument for extradition in June that could include further charges.

Likewise, the US has instructed Canada, supposedly a sovereign nation, to extradite Meng Wanzhou, “a senior executive of Huawei, a telecommunications giant, and the daughter of its founder. The action was taken at the request of American prosecutors, who accuse Ms Meng of scheming to sidestep sanctions against Iran.”  (The Economist,

Am I the only one bothered by American global overreach? Left or Right, does anyone really think it’s OK for the US to tell China who to trade with? Do we really believe that the US, because supposedly good, should be able to bend the laws of sovereign nation-states to its will?

If you support such illiberal use of American power in overriding national sovereignty around the world—you can hardly claim the mantle of a populist, concerned for the survival and sovereignty of nations states.

Oy Vey, Owens: Candace’ Nationalism Arguments Are Confused

Argument, Europe, Fascism, Logic, Nationhood, Political Philosophy, Reason, Republicans, War

As appealing as she is as an activist, Candace Owens is no clear thinker. She certainly manages to confuse with her default definition of nationalism vis-a-vis the Trump Revolution.

The setting: Some moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.
There, Owens roughly asserted that “Hitler killed his own people hence he was not a nationalist,” which is a non sequitur.

Ms. Owens here is proceeding from the asserted premise—for she doesn’t argue it—that nationalists do not “kill their own people.” This may be true (but would further depend on definitions; what is meant by “own people”), although I very much doubt it. Nevertheless, it appears that Owens’ thought process is something like,

“I like nationalism [check], and, therefore, Hitler, whom I most certainly don’t like, and who was a monster, could not have been a nationalist.”

Consider: Like all Republicans, Owens, no doubt, adores Lincoln. But would she call Honest Abe a nationalist? Why not? I mean, nationalism is a good thing and Abe, say Republicans like Owens, was a good guy.

Well, there is the pesky fact of Lincoln having killed “his own people” … hmmm. By Owens’ seemingly dogmatic definition of nationalism (not killing your own people), Lincoln, at least, does not qualify as a nationalist.

Just so we’re clear.

What preceded Owens’ odd assertion above was an even stranger comment, again, about Hitler. (This was at the same moronic, white-nationalism Congressional hearings.)

“If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well — OK, fine,” she says. “The problem is … he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German.”

The problem with Hitler? Heavens! Where does one start? It was not that he was a “globalist.” (Is that the kind of “globalist” George Soros Citizen of The World is, Candace?)

How about that Hitler is synonymous with conquest, subjugation, slavery and industrialized mass murder in the service of world hegemony, which, he truly believed, would make Germany  indisputably the greatest power?

the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire of 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich)